Jump to content

Talk:Jews/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

the Jews' picture album

Hello everyone.

i think it's very non-aesthetic that the photo album of 'jews' contains only black&white photos of jews, it should include some modern-day jews, and the portraits of additional notable and influancing jews like jesus, david ben gurion, Baal Shem Tov, and modern-day jews, "of all kinds". thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.4.24 (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Who to include is always contentious, so we include just a small number. Also, we've been finding it difficult to get a photograph of Jesus. Jayjg (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

your response does not matter to everything i just said. and, why being cynic? and think alone why it's cynicism. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.4.24 (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the humour, Jayjg. I have another complaint: the text mentiones “Israel and the territories”, “Israeli Arabs and Arabs in the territories”, “Palestinian Arab”, “Palestinians” (all in section “Male lineages: Y chromosomal DNA”), “Palestinian Arabs” (in section “Genome-wide association and linkage studies”), and “12 members of the Knesset are Arab citizens of Israel ... and one of Israel's Supreme Court judges is a Palestinian Arab” (in section “State of Israel”). My suggestion: Palestinians with Israeli citizenship should all be called either ‘Arab Israelis’ or ‘Israeli Arabs’, and those outside of Israel (within the Green Line) should all be called ‘Palestinians’. The last example is particularly confusing: it suggests that the only non-Jewish member of the High Court, being called “Palestinian Arab” as opposed to the “Arab citizens of Israel” in the Knesset, is not an Israeli citizen but comes from what the article calls “the territories”, an expression by the way which is only used in Israeli Jargon and ought to be translated into proper international language. If there are no objections, I'm going to make the changes, if nobody else does. Ajnem (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
What you're saying is reasonable and makes perfect sense; you should therefore expect huge objections. Jayjg (talk) 17:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Photobox

I suggest that we delete the photobox. It serves very little purpose in this article, which is about Jews worldwide and over a period of 3000 years. We have four choices, all of whom are of European descent, three of whom are from the last 150 years. The photos are highly unrepresentative. Having been involved in a lot of these photobox discussion over the years, I understand how difficult it is to get a good selection that people agree with. In this article, I suggest that it is not suitable to have a photobox. Avaya1 (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is continued at Template talk:Infobox Jews#Comment on the photobox, and editors are invited to comment. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"back to Israel"

This is absurd. The center of organized Jewish life was in the Land of Israel before the Babylonian and Roman exiles, so of course its move to the modern State of Israel is a move back to Israel. Requiring consensus demonstrates a lack of COMMONSENSE. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The section speaks about where Jews live and lived, many Jews converted to Judaism and have never lived in Israel before and are not descended from Jews who lived in the land of Israel, so "back" is not correct. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Read it again. Carefully.
Over the course of the diaspora the center of Jewish life moved from Babylonia[158] to the Iberian Peninsula[159] to Poland[160] to the United States[161] and, as a result of Zionism, to Israel.[162]
I don't think it says what you think it says. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello everybody. My suggestion: “Over the course of the diaspora the center of Jewish life moved from Babylonia to the Iberian Peninsula, to Poland, and in the 20th century to the United States and to Israel”. Because, regardless of what one thinks about the back-to-Israel-issue, today's Jewish center is not in Israel, but both in Israel and the U.S. And it's an old story: Babylon vs. Jerusalem. So far, Babylon has always won, but history will tell. And whether it was thanks to Zionism, or rather Antisemitism or other Antiisms that Jews went to Palestine and later Israel after World War II, may also remain an open question here. And speeking of Babylon, the sentence preceeding the one above: “The 2,000 year dispersion of the Jewish diaspora beginning under the Roman Empire, as Jews were spread throughout the Roman world and, driven from land to land, and settled wherever they could live freely enough to practice their religion” IMO contains three mistakes. One, there is an “and” too much it should be “... as Jews were spread throughout the Roman world and, driven from land to land, settled wherever they could live freely enough to practice their religion”, second, the dispersion did not begin under the Roman Empire, but more than 500 years earlier. Consensus among most historians is that the majority of the Jewish people has lived outside the Land of Israel since the destruction of the First, not the Second Tempel, as correctly stated in the lead, and third, Jews did not “settle wherever they could live freely enough to practice their religion”, but wherever they thought they could make a (decent) living. Had they chosen the places where they could live freely, even only “freely enough to practice their religion”, European Christian countries would have been the last places they would have chosen. And by the way, as far as I know, “the Exodus ... from ancient Egypt, as recorded in the Book of Exodus” is not exactly perceived as an “expulsion” in Jewish tradition, and the article forgets to mention how “the Children of Israel” got to Egypt in the first place. Ajnem (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
All good points. I'd be interested in hearing what other editors have to say about the proposed to the United States and to Israel language. I think it's fine, assuming we can find reliable sources to support it (which I don't think will be a problem). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
While not commenting on the specific proposal, I think that in general editors who are unfamiliar with Jewish history and modern Jewish life should probably not be making edits to this article based purely on their own political biases. Jayjg (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Jayjg, do you care to explain what you are trying to say? Mystified, Ajnem (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

number of Jews in Israel

As of 2011 is approximately 5,874,300, according to the Israeli Central bureau of statistics, I'm not allowed to edit here, please do so Valleyofdawn (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Formatting bug

In the Demographics, Population centres section, the sortable table of population and percentages doesn't work properly. It can be sorted alphabetically (left column). It can be sorted by percentage (right column). However sorting the total number (center column) gives odd results. Any way to fix that? --@Efrat (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Picture of "Crusaders"

I am worried about the picture from the Medieval Bible, could we have more information on it? PWI24 (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Jews photobox needed

a small group of irrational people think "Jews" to be a fat man, with a black short suit, with big eyes, and a strictly trimmed half-grey half-black beard, and generally grey head-hair. and a lot of dollars kinda glued to his black clothes. that is so stupid. i think a photobox like this could provide stubborn, persistent, proof for such people minds, that "Jews" and this fictional caricature or to different things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.151.250 (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Term for non-religious Jew

I can't determine from this article what the most common term for a non-religious person of Jewish descent would be - especially when comparing, say, a person of African descent who converted to Judaism and a person from Israel who is an atheist. In this case, would not both be considered "Jews"? What's the common vernacular to describe the difference between a person who practices Judaism and a person who is merely Jewish by birth? Lexlex (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a distinguishing term. If you can find a reliable source that says otherwise (or, for that matter, confirms there is not distinguishing term), feel free to add it. But my understanding is there really isn't a different single-word term that distinguishes between someone who practices the Jewish religion and an atheist who identifies as being of Jewish descent. Singularity42 (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

the term would either be atheist, or if they claimed some belief but not following the customs it would be a non-observant jew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.129.95 (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 June 2012

Hi, is it possible to add more population on the list:


There are 20,000-25,000 Jews in Iran Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews

7,000 Jews in Georgia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Jews

40,000 Jews in Nigeria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igbo_Jews

8,700 Jews in Ethiopia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Ethiopia

16,000 Jews in India (four different groups) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bnei_menashe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochin_Jews http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdadi_Jews http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bene_Israel

30,000 Jews in Poland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_jews


Thanks


110.174.132.45 (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (Wikipedia is a good encyclopedia but not a reliable source.) Also, except for Nigeria and Iran, the figures you're providing are somewhat lower than the ones currently listed. Perhaps some of the regular contributors to this article would care to comment on how the threshold was established for inclusion in the list. (I see there are multiple threads dealing with population in the talk archives.) Rivertorch (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand your rejection on reliable-source grounds. The articles themselves all have sources provided for their numbers, which prima facie are reliable; hence there's no call for rejecting them without a clear reason. Also, if you look at the single source for all the numbers, it's clear that the threshold for inclusion is simply whatever was listed there — the source lists exactly these 18 countries and no others. There's a good argument that we should use a single source for all numbers rather than mixing sources, because we have no idea if the criteria are compatible. But the IP's basic concern for leaving out Jews in other countries is valid -- I'm going to fix it by adding a row for "other". Benwing (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

a photobox needed

thanks. 79.182.159.6 (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 July 2012

|- | Portugal Portugal | align="right" | 8,000 | align="right" | 0.77% |-

History of the Jews in Portugal Miguelyisrael (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: After 4 days and 10 edits you should be able to correct it yourself.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

User Historylover4

has been constantly involved in edit wars and vandalization of different Wikipedia sites like Demographic history of Jerusalem and Jews as far as I see he has been warned many times, yet he continues with this practice. The user has been notified regarding my report — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 00:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"Origins" section: confusing and jargon-laden

Can somebody summarize the "Origins" section in a few English sentences that the average reader without a background in genetics can understand? As it stands, the section is confusing, it's jargon-filled, and it's got too many quotes. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Genetics studies POV?

Apart from this whole article being way too long, the genetics studies section (also too long, and too technical), has an interesting flavour to it. Apart from the last paragraph of the last sub-section I can detect a kind of desperation to prove there is some kind of ethnic purity to the Jewish people. One doesn't need all this highly subjectively interpretable genetic studies nonsense to realise that Jews have a vast amount of admixture and are not ethnically homogeneous - that is their greatest strength, the absorption of the ideas and culture of the whole world. After all, has anyone ever seen a blond haired, blue eyed Palestinian, or a black African Palestinian?... Didn't think so.1812ahill (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's also confusing. Members of a religion and a race are being discussed in this article as if they are one and the same. Wouldn't it make sense to leave the religious stuff in Judaism and focus only on ethnicity here? A difficult task, but this is pretty messy. Lexlex (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

C. L. Campbell et al 2012 genetic study

User DrMicro

Please read the source you are using and avoid coming out with opposite conclusions than the given reference is stating.

"Historical Jewish migrations out of the Middle East about 2,000 years ago can also be traced in the DNA of people living in Africa and Southwest Asia today. These distinctive genetic signatures bolster historical accounts that there were waves of Jewish migration out of the Middle East into neighboring regions. Human geneticist Harry Ostrer of Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City and colleagues report their analysis of 509 people from 15 Jewish populations online August 6 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, focusing their attention on communities in North Africa, Ethiopia, Yemen and the Caucasus.

The results complement historical accounts of multiple Jewish migrations and expulsions. The genetic ties between North African Jews and Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews may reflect the expulsion of European Jews from Spain and Portugal during the Spanish Inquisition in the late 1400s, and their limited breeding with local North African populations in the centuries that followed. Distinct populations, such as Ethiopian Jews, likely arose from Jewish founders who converted the local population by proselytizing but did not intermarry. "This is certainly the most extensive genomic study of Jewish populations to date," says geneticist Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the work. "And it shows there's both a genetic and a cultural component to being Jewish." Genetic ties within each of the groups were even closer, about the equivalent of fourth or fifth cousins. That study didn't include North African Jews, who represent the world's second largest Jewish population, or any groups whose claim to Jewishness has been controversial, such as Ethiopian Jews.North African Jewsand Moroccan/Algerian Jews in particularshowed a close genetic connection to Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, and little evidence of interbreeding with contemporary non-Jewish populations in North Africa. [7] Jews in Morocco and Algeria bear genetic signatures characteristic of Sephardic Jews, who once lived in Spain and Portugal. The Spanish Inquisition caused the expulsion of Sephardic Jews from the Iberian Peninsula and many went to North Africa, carrying their genetic heritage with them. DNA signatures found in Ethiopian Jews indicate that they are genetically different from Middle Eastern Jews and from the other people living in Ethiopia. [6] The findings tended to track with what is known of the history of the Jewish Diaspora, or spread of the Jewish people, through North Africa. "This tends to fit the historical observation that during Islamic times from roughly the eighth century to roughly the 20th century, there was limited intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews," Tritomex (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Page should be renamed to "Jewish People"

Please read this page which came up when I did a Google search for Jew(s): Explanation from Google. It seems that very few people actually search for "Jew" unless they are looking for antisemitic sites. Serious queries are usually for "Jewish people" or "Judaism." If you look up Arabs on Wikipedia you get directed to Arab people. I would think the same would apply here. Comments? Opportunidaddy (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

We've discussed this repeatedly here -- read the talk page archives -- and the consensus has consistently been for the current title. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I did just browse the archives, noting that the current title did not come into usage without considerable birthing pains. It was apparently named "Jew" originally, and you and others opposed the name-change on the ground that you were proud Jew(s) and that there was nothing wrong with the word "Jew" - which to my mind is not an objective argument. It seems the article was named "Jew" for quite a number of years. "Jewish people" was rejected by you and (some) others, on the ground that it was euphemistic for "Jew(s)." I thought the IP Special:Contributions/128.91.24.53, and user:Leflyman made convincing arguments in favor. (I admit to only going up to and including Archive 19- not all the way through 35 ). There were a number of people (including several that identified themselves as Jews) that preferred the "Jewish people." I just happened upon the Google page and it inspired me check out the page on Wikipedia, since I was aware that Arab directs to Arab people and that Arab Palestinians redirects to Palestinian people. I was surprised to see that Jew redirected to this article and not one named Jewish people. The term "Jewish people" stresses the peoplehood of the Jews. It is how many Jews relate to each other, with a special sympathy (in the old fashioned sense) to other Jews, a shared awareness of how much we as a people have suffered over the centuries at the hands of other peoples. I prefer the peoplehood concept to the "proud Jew" concept myself. Not that I will argue the point. Arguing a point at Wikipedia has to be about the most fruitless exercise in the world. Opportunidaddy (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 May 2012

In the section "Who is a Jew?" the statement: "This contrasts with Ezra 10:2–3, where Israelites returning from Babylon ....." should be changed to: "This is complemented by Ezra 10:2–3, where Israelites returning from Babylon ...." due to simple and common logic ! Hkdh (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Done Mdann52 (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Referring to this same quote "Israelites returning from Babylon vow to put aside their gentile wives and their children.[27][28]" This is simply not correct. According to the KJV Bible in Ezra 10:2–3 (from which many more modern Bibles are adapted probably this verse) it says: "And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken STRANGE wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing.

Using Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible with Hebrew Chaldee and Greek dictionaries, the Hebrew for strange is translated: 05237 נכרי nokriy nok-ree’, whereas the word gentile appears nowhere in this quote whatsoever in it's orignal text. The word gentile wasn't used until thousands of years later and isn't even a Hebrew word, but is Greek and is only found in the New Testament. The Hebrew Old Testament version of the word Gentile can be most closely connected to the likely equavalent word heathen. Heathen is translated 01471 גוי gowy go’- ee rarely (shortened) גי goy go’- ee. So even the word heathen is not used in this quote either. The word used was strange (nok-ree’ in Hebrew). Nowhere in the Bible (old or new testaments) does it say that the Israelites cannot marry Gentiles or heathen. It only says that they cannot marry bastards (translated as mongrel Italic text- 'mamzer' - in Hebrew.) and that they cannot marry Canaanites and Edomites. These were the stange wives being referrered to. They were, for example, allowed to marry heathen like the Egyptians and Syrians who were therefore, by implication not bastards despite being heathen. Hagar, Abraham's legal concubine was an Egyptian (Genesis 16:3) and Rebekah (Isaac's wife) was a Syrian (Genesis 25:20).

Please replace this verse: "This is complemented by Ezra 10:2–3, where Israelites returning from Babylon vow to put aside their gentile wives and their children.[27][28]", with this one: "This is complemented by Ezra 10:2–3, where Israelites returning from Babylon vow to put aside their strange wives and their children.[27][28]" --41.2.168.98 (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I changed the sentence above as per my recommendation above since nobody on here responded to my request. However now it has been changed back to 'gentile' instead of 'strange' with no explanation given. I feel there is discrimination by Wikipedia editors against anybody considered to be a Gentile (i.e. non-Jewish) to the point where they will even falsify verses from the Jewish Torah itself (as described above) to promote this agenda - and to top it all: without any explanation for reversing my edit ! The word Gentile isn't even written with a capital 'G', whereas 'Israelites' in the same quote is written with a capital 'I' !--41.118.14.187 (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Notable Jews

I've notices that most, in fact all I've yet seen, articles about ethnic groups have images of notable representatives of the respective nation. Wouldn't it be right to have notable Jews and their images on the infobox?

Here's my version and the bold ones are the ones that I think should definitely be chosen.

Please comment and let me know about your opinion. --Yerevanci (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that Moses and Abraham are fictional characters, there is no reason to list them as notable Jews. --JWienstein 17:01 August 15th 2012 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.61.9.232 (talk)

Firstly, only those born of the tribe of Judah are Jews according to the Torah (with possible exception of the tribe of Benjamin which joined with the tribe of Judah forming the new Kingdom of Judah. The tribe of Levi lived in both the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah and so cannot be called Jews). Therefore Abraham and Moses were not Jews. Judah wasn't even born at the time of Abraham. This is a a very common mistake.

Secondly, what is you reason for saying Moses and Abraham were fictional characters ? Even if they are only mentioned in the Torah and not in any other non-Biblical sources that also may not be reason enough to say they never existed. Many other ancient people from other countries have only been written about by their own people and not by any other source and we don't say that they never even existed !--41.2.168.98 (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw an edit war on the German American page I think. Someone spent time adding more and it was reverted because they showed up too small so you may wish to keep the count down. The best way may be to list by the number of page hits their articles get here? Just my thoughts though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I tried to only include the most important ones on my list, but it still came out to be long. I think the appropriate number is 16 (4 by 4), but 12 and 20 could be acceptable as well. And yes, that could be a possibility to put chose them by the article hits, because it can't really disputed.--Yerevanci (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
There used to be a picture. Somebody removed it in March, with the edit summary on the talk pages over the years there is a massive majority of editors objecting to the photobox. Also wiki project consensus for no photoboxes for religious category - the ethnic category covered more representatively by many sub-articles. The best place to have this discussion may be Template talk:Infobox Jews. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
What's the difference where you discuss it? If you agree with me, say yes, if not come up with your own idea. Simple as that.--Yerevanci (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You should first find where to discuss it and then go from there. You could spam every dispute board in wikipedia with it like Michael Roach and Rangers F. C. have done but that just irritates editors.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I strongly recommend reading the previous discussions at Template talk:Infobox Jews. It will provide insight into the issues involved in choosing a balanced array of figures to include, and whether or not to have a photobox at all. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

My version

OK, here's my version. Please leave your comments, including replacements, images and their sizes, etc.--Yerevanci (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Abraham Moses Solomon Jesus Christ
Maimonides Baruch Spinoza Benjamin Disraeli Karl Marx
Sigmund Freud Theodor Herzl Albert Einstein David Ben-Gurion
Golda Meir Shimon Peres Barbra Streisand Steven Spielberg
anyway, I think that some young people (who identify as "jews"), are needed also. there shouldn't be an emphasis on "old" people. it's not representative. i also think that an equal number of men and women should appear. much thanks for your work. i am glad someone finally started moving processes. it's needed in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.172.188 (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
another thing, the moses and jesus are good choices. i think that some photos of ethiopian and asian jews are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.172.188 (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
first, i think that moses, jesus, and definitely abraham, wasn't "jews", they was israelite (abraham was officially became the first hebrew --- abraham the hebrew --- אברהם העברי).
Well, do you have any idea of who can replace Abraham, Moses and Jesus? I think that King David isn't a bad choice? Don't you think?
I don't know any other female Jewish notables. Maybe Elisabeth Taylor? It would be great if you name some.
And for new generation representatives, I would put Roman Abramovich and Drake.--Yerevanci (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
They are so many, I don't which ones to chose.--Yerevanci (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Per the discussions at Template talk:Infobox Jews, there was a delicate balance in the images chosen for display, with a consensus arrived at only after lengthy negotiation. The balance (between men and women, religious and secular, different historical periods, etc.) was stable long-term. I am convinced it would be beneficial to study and build upon the previous process, rather than "reinvent the wheel" here with regard to selection criteria and candidates for inclusion. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Did they ever discuss policy though? If 12-16 images are added to an article I don't think they should be removed but just replaced. The replacements should reach consensus before reverted, deleted, edit warred, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
i offer that we won't hasten with the photobox. much people have yet to give their opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.150.241 (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
i think that the Abraham reference should be removed (he was not "jewish" nor israelite by relgiion or etnicity that's for sure), i think that we also should give up the references of Shpinoza and Golda Meir. shpinoza is "well famous", and of zionist jews i assume that Hertzel and Ben-Gurion is enough. i think that Philo should replace the Solomon reference. in general, 4 more people should be added to the original arrangement.

consider to add/replace, with the listed (ordered): Philo, Shlomo Molla, Esti Ginzborg, Mila Kunis, Uri Avnery, Ofra Haza, Steven Pinker, Robert Aumann.

a possible but need-revision arrangement:

Moses Jesus Christ Philo Maimonides
Benjamin Disraeli Karl Marx Sigmund Freud Albert Einstein
Theodor Herzl David Ben-Gurion Shimon Peres Shlomo Molla
Barbra Streisand Robert Aumann Mila Kunis Ofra Haza
Hagit Yaso Esti Ginzborg Uri Avnery Steven Pinker

Hey, hey hey. Let's not forget one of the most famous Jewish entertainers of them all:

Sammy Davis, Jr.


...or doesn't he count? I'm a bit confused as to whether this article is about a religion or a race. Lexlex (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone in this discussion are jews. second, there is no such a things a s a "jewish race", it exists only in the minds of science haters and what's called fanatical white supremacists and "white seperatists". judaism is a religion with practitioners from all globe, i advise to take a look in the article (and it's photos, and than look for more info in Google) "Jewish ethnic divisions". i think that the photobox should include mostly colored photos. if u can supply such, it would be great. there is no serious reason to put achromatic photos of people who lived till the 2000's, there must be some usable in color. achromatic photos are just not very representative and should be used only when no others can be used instead of them. 79.181.146.146 (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
"there is no such a things a s a "jewish race" - so, you're saying that atheists who self identify as "Jewish" are what, exactly? I am confused as I'm getting a contradicting stance on this particular point (race/religion - see above) and would like to get this clear. If this article is about a religion, then why not merge it with Judaism? Is there really a consensus on your claim? Lexlex (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I like to say that Jews are a "people". "Race" doesn't work; if "race" exists, you can't change yours, but you can choose to be a Jew, and you can choose not to be (though some people will ignore either of those choices.) "Religion" is not sufficient, since one can both be of the Jewish people (i.e., a Jew) and completely non- or anti-religious. "Culture" doesn't work; there are widely disparate Jewish cultures, some having nothing to do with the others, but they're still Jewish. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Atheist-Jews is A funny term, though, a might-be-needed one. these people are "Humans of a direct 'Jewish ethnoreligios background', who have abandoned the jewish way of life, for Atheism". Jews are an entoreligious group and nothing else from it. even if some of the "Jewish" Atheists, would like to think different. blessings. 79.181.146.146 (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I like "entoreligious". It explains praying mantises. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Spelled properly, ethnoreligious group is a recognized and applicable term. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I ask of all readers to contribute to this debate. 79.177.156.102 (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Guys, give your opinions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.151.131 (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest Gila Almagor instead of Mila Kunis, and also Izhak Perlman, Arthur Rubinstein and Leonard Bernstein. Surly not Elisabeth Taylor. שלומית קדם (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
For my opinion, too much Ashkenazi jews is not good for the article nor it improves the Photobox. the Photobox should show the ethnic variation of the Jewish nation. a focus on one "Jewish" group is a disasterous thing. btw, what's wrong with Mila Kunis?

"ethnos" misspelled?

In the first paragraph of the "Jews" article, shouldn't the word "ethnos" really be "ethos"? Theodosius21 (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. Ethos is a philosophical concept, whereas ethnos is (as the name suggests) an ethnic one. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Demographics

The Table of the Jewish population around the world Total should be 13,370,100 100% Or is total the jewish population among the worlds population? I think this should be more specific. Werezwolf (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Peacock28 21:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Orientalism

Orientalism is defined on its respective Wiki page as a type of prejudice against Middle Eastern, Asian, and North African cultures. Seeing as Jews collectively are a Middle Eastern culture, and have been subjected to Orientalist stereotyping for centuries [1], I felt it was appropriate to include this category here. Discuss.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~ikalmar/illustex/orijed.intro.htm
A topic related to prejudice against Jews would fall under the Antisemitism article. I see that there's already a discussion at that article's talk page suggesting that a draft be started there to see how it could eventually be added. Singularity42 (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Antisemitism also falls under the Orientalism umbrella.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

As I explained on the talk page you linked me to, antisemitism as we know it today is essentially a form of Orientalism. As the source I've linked to demonstrates, the majority of classic anti-Jewish prejudice operates in conjunction with perceptions of Eastern peoples as mysterious, manipulative, conniving, disloyal, and above all, alien (seeing that Jews are essentially a Middle Eastern people, and not particularly "native" to Europe in that sense). For example, Jewish conspiracy theories such as the Protocols, the killing of Christ, blood libels, Jewish control of the media, banking, etc all have firm roots in European Orientalist prejudices. European enlightenment figures such as Immanuel Kant and Johann Gottfried von Herder designated local Jewish communities as "Palestinians" and "the Asiatics of Europe".Evildoer187 (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The suggestion is that orientalism is a form of antisemitism, and there are ongoing discussions to add that to the antisemitism article. Since this article already links to Antisemitism, it is unneccessary to add Orientalism to the See Also section. Singularity42 (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I think you have it backwards. It says antisemitism is a form of Orientalism, not the other way around. I am not sure I get your point about it being unnecessary to add Orientalism to the See Also section. Both categories are related to each other.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Concerning the discussion on the Antisemitism talk page, I've already explained my stance there. In fact, most of what I've written above is copied and pasted from my post in there.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I really don't see how I can explain my position any clearer, without just repeating myself. I'll wait to see what other editors say. Singularity42 (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm simply asking why would it be a bad thing to add a link to the Orientalism article, just because that article already links to antisemitism? I can think of 100s of examples of this sort of thing off the top of my head. It's nothing new.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I attached a source to it this time. Hopefully this will end the dispute.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Please review WP:SEEALSO, which says:
Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section.
I agree that Orientalism is relevant, but I also agree with the editor at Talk:Antisemitism (Roscelese) who recommended that you write a short paragraph about orientalism instead of just adding it as a "See also" link. I think it would help improve this article and make it clearer what orientalism has to do with the subject of this article than a mere "See also" link would. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I will type up a short paragraph straight away.Evildoer187 (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph. We have a section on persecution of Jews, with links to articles such as Antisemitism. I do not believe there is a consensus to add a stand-alone section on Orientalism. I'm also concerned that the two references used are: 1) a self-published website, and 2) a class-version of an academic paper. I would have no objection to a minor reference to Orientalism in the section Jews#War and persecution. Ultimately, though, what is being referenced here is antisemitism, which is already covered, and can be covered more extensively at Antisemitism.
By the way, Evidoer187, what we are doing here is having an ongoing discussion to see what the consensus here is among the community of editors. I would strongly urge you to wait until a WP:CONSENSUS emerges before adding Orientalism to the article. As already pointed out to you, there is no deadline. Singularity42 (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I was told I could include Orientalism so long as I wrote up a short paragraph explaining why it was relevant, and I did. But in any case, I just merged the Orientalism paragraph I typed up with the War and Persecution section. The second source I used is fine, but I will see if I can find a different source than the self-published online pamphlet I referenced.Evildoer187 (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Come to think of it, the first source I used (the self-published website) does have something of an educational value to it for those who wish to understand antisemitism and how it works. In addition, it has the clearest and most concise definition of Orientalism that I can think of. For that reason, I suggest we leave it up.Evildoer187 (talk) 09:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Your new version now uses two references that do not meet the definition of reliable sources. One is a self-published website. The other is a blog. I am now asking you again: please let the discussion to continue before rushing to add contested content to the page. This discussion has literally been going on for less than two days. As already pointed out, you have to give time for other editors to join the discussion and make their opinions known. Just wait a few days and see what the consensus is. Singularity42 (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
My proposal: Leave this page the way it is with the references to the antisemitism article. At the antisemitism article, note that orientalism against the Jewish culture, etc., is a type of antisemitism. As part of that reference, link to to the orientalism article. Singularity42 (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain why you deleted my edits to the first paragraph. Anyway, antisemitism is a form of Orientalism, not the other way around (I believe I've told you this before). The following should be sufficient sources:

  • Kant, Immanuel (1974): Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. Translated by Mary J. Gregor. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, cited in Chad Alan Goldberg, Politicide Revisited. University of Wisconsin-Madison

The latter of these is fully sourced, and lifted directly from a manuscript of a published book written by two scholars. It was written for the use of the students of Ivan Kalmar, who helped write the book, so the source is legit.Evildoer187 (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph about orientalism that was deleted in this edit appears to be poorly sourced original research. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Check the citations I've posted above. Both of them are legit sources.Evildoer187 (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Break

This should suffice, hopefully:

Ashkenazi Jews, who are of ancestral South West Asian origins [1] and culturally (and often physically) isolated from the indigenous European populations amongst whom they were resident (see also: Shtetls), were widely understood to be an Oriental people in many of the European countries they had settled. One notable example of this is Immanuel Kant, who once referred to the local Jewish population as "Palestinians among us" in his Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View book. [2] As such, many of the oldest and longest enduring anti-Jewish stereotypes are rooted in Euro-centric prejudices towards peoples of Asian and North African background.[3] Examples of this include, but are not limited to, Jewish conspiracy theories and myths such as blood libels (even though consumption of blood is not kosher), the Jewish killing of Christ, myths of supernatural Jewish powers, Zionist collaboration with the Nazis, Jewish money stereotypes, fears of a Jewish or Zionist 'plot to control the world' (see also: Protocols of the Elders of Zion) and the general idea that Jews/Zionists are immoral, mysterious, demonic, and often act secretly behind the scenes.[4]

Evildoer187 (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/science/10jews.html?_r=0
  2. ^ Kant, Immanuel (1974): Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. Translated by Mary J. Gregor. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, cited in Chad Alan Goldberg, Politicide Revisited. University of Wisconsin-Madison
  3. ^ Edward W. Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), 28
  4. ^ http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~ikalmar/illustex/orijed.intro.htm#_edn2
This seems to me to be about antisemitic canards, not orientalism. I'm starting to get the sense that maybe orientalism—if it's included at all—should be included among the "Further information" links at the top of the article's section on "War and persecution". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I think we should also include a revised edition of my paragraph as a sub-section under War and Persecution as well.Evildoer187 (talk) 06:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, what I've been trying to say over the duration of this exchange is that classic antisemitic canards and Orientalism are interwoven and closely related to one another. Put in layman's terms, antisemitism is Orientalism. This is what my sources (Edward Said among them) have said, so I really can't fathom why some of you insist on treating them as wholly distinct phenomena, hermetically sealed off from each other.Evildoer187 (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your latest edits, which appended this text to the "War and persecution" section. It is still poorly sourced, contains original research, and in my opinion adds little or nothing to the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
If you could be more specific as to what it is exactly you deem to be "original research" or "poorly sourced", then that would be great. I went to painstaking lengths to assure that it was neither poorly sourced or original research.Evildoer187 (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  1. Who says Jews were "widely understood" to be an Oriental people?
  2. According to whom is Kant a notable example?
  3. Why the laundry list of antisemitic canards? We already have an article on that subject.
I hope that helps. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
1. See the third and fourth citations.
2. I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. Kant is a famous philosopher, and his reference to Jews as "Palestinians" is a pretty explicit indicator of what public opinion was. And if you read the paper, there are other prominent figures who have made similar comments.
3. I did that for the sake of clarity, as they were representative of the European conception of Jews as "wily, conniving, mysterious Asiatics".Evildoer187 (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
No comment right now on the first two (I need to read the paper again, and I probably won't be able to do that until tonight or tomorrow. The third point is original research / synthesis. Basically, you're taking well-known examples of antisemitism and pointing to them as examples of orientalism (that is, well-known examples of antisemitism are essentially due to Europeans' opinions that Jews are oriental/asiatic. That simply cannot be the case. The Antisemitism and History of antisemitism articles have reliable sources that have other explanations for the origins of these examples of antisemitism. What you are doing is saying: 1) There is a reliable source that Europeans discrminated against Jews because of orientalism; 2) There are reliable sources of well known discrimination and prejudice by Europeans against Jews; 3) Number two is therefore a result of number one - without a reliable source. That's a problem. Singularity42 (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Point 1 was unsourced. You say the third and fourth citations support it, but the text doesn't indicate that.
Please read your response to point 2. What makes you think Kant's fame as a philosopher makes him a "pretty explicit indicator of what public opinion was"? That's original research.
As Singularity42 wrote, your response to point 3 indicates that it is an exercise in original research. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Math

The table in Jews#Population_centres is all cocked up. There is a line for “Europe” (1,506,000) and separate lines for nine European countries (totalling 1,351,400), then a “Total” line at the bottom which appears to sum them all (although the figure isn't a correct total of all lines). Likewise, “Asia (excl. Israel)” includes two or three other countries which may, or may not, be represented in the sum. —Michael Z. 2011-03-25 03:36 z —Preceding undated comment added 03:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Jewish divisions

It has been proposed that Jewish ethnic divisions article be renamed into Jewish ancestral divisions, please express your opinion at Talk:Jewish ethnic divisions#Rename. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I want to add a "related ethnic groups" section to the infobox

How do you do that? Would it be a good idea?Evildoer187 (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it’s a good idea! Write something like “Samaritans, Arabs, Assyrians, and other Semitic people”, but lets wait for other people to comment on it because the fact that nothing is written is there might be as a result of having a controversy regarding what to write. If we do write we should not forget that Jews are an ethnic group so the relation should be built on blood, which means other Semitic people. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

My intent was to include Other Levantines, Samaritans, Assyrians, and Arabs.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

To edit the infobox, visit Template:Infobox Jews. You might want to leave a note at Template talk:Infobox Jews that you're discussing a change here.
With respect to the change itself, I don't have any opinion one way or the other. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

"Who's A Jew"

I wanted to add the following paragraph, what do you think:

The question "who is a Jew?" is also sometimes of importance to non-Jews. It has had exceptional significance historically when considered by anti-Jewish groups for the purpose of targeting Jews for persecution or discrimination. The definition can impact on whether a person may have a certain job, live in certain locations, receive a free education, live or continue to live in the country, be imprisoned, or executed. The most noticeable example is the attention given to this question during the Nazi regime. During that period of time, many laws were instituted, discriminating against Jews and thus grew a need for a working definition of who is a Jew.

− In Germany itself, the Ahnenpass and Nuremberg Laws classified people as Jews if they descended from three or four Jewish grandparents. A person with one or two Jewish grandparents was a Mischling, a crossbreed, of "mixed blood". One could not become a non-Jew in the eyes of the government by becoming non-practicing, marrying outside the religion, or converting to Christianity. Only people with at least two of their grandparents of "German blood" could be German citizens.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottyNolan (talk • contribs) 10:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not keen on the source, or on the narrow focus on Nazi Germany. Jayjg (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
This topic is more appropriately covered in the separate article "Who is a Jew?", where it has two sections at Who is a Jew#Antisemitic definitions, which you appear to be cut-and-pasting here. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Jews are an ethnoreligious group, ethnicity which formed around a religion. Jew is someone who has Jewish ethnicity, which means genes, or someone who follows the Jewish faith. A person can consider himself a Jew because of his ethnicity but not consider himself Jewish by religion, or a person can be a convert to Judaism which consideres himself Jewish on a religious basis but is not of Jewish ethnicity. It depends on personal choice which of those identities to follow. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Ethnicity and genes aren't the same thing, and in any event I don't think you've addressed the objections to this material. Jayjg (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Genes is one of the things ethnicity is based on. English, Russians, Jews all have similar genes, though not 100% identical due to local influences. Ethnicity usually starts from a common or related origin. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The original question pertained to whether certain material from another article should be duplicated in this article. As no interest has been expressed here in doing so, I suggest we conclude this discussion. Hertz1888 (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Updated figures

The number of Jews in most countries is on a steady decline, so I understand you keeping the numbers for them for now until more accurate figures can be found. But Israel's Jewish population keeps growing rapidly, and is now 6,015,000 (out of 7,981,000). (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4326257,00.html). Should we add them, or just wait for the next Jewish population survey?--RM (Be my friend) 19:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You might as well update the figures for Israel. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the source is quite reliable! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Code for Pictures

Hey, I am trying to find out how the code for the pictures made on the ethnicity infobox. Can please someone direct me to it cause I don't see it in the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowkeyvision (talk • contribs) 03:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You can find it at Template:Infobox Jews. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you (Lowkeyvision (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC))

first century population growth

The article says.

"In the first century of the Christian era, for example, the population more than doubled, from four to 8–10 million within the confines of the Roman Empire, in good part as a result of a wave of conversion.[49]"

I have seen this claim before but never a reliable source for it. For example from someone who is not, a second hand source / political pundit.

Link 49 is also broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonney2000 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I refreshed the link for footnote 49. Yehuda Bauer, the author of the article cited, is a historian and not a "political pundit". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


Your right he seems ok I thought he was another anti-Zionist Haaretz person. I have seen this used as an anti-Zionist canard. Link 49 still does not really deal with this and only mentions it in a footnote. Nor does it go into detail of where in the Diaspora it is referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.151.95 (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

What is the "Jewish Nation"?

There is much talk about a Jewish nation and nationality, but there is, however, no nation called "Jew".

Jewish is a religion and a culture. A socioreligious group only. Unggoydiyos (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It's an ethnoreligious group, which means it's an ethnicity and a religion. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Whats an ethnicity? And if its a religion doesn't that make the ethnicity redundant, as anyone can become jewish through conversion?.Judas734 (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

minsk had no way 40% jewish population

There are no sources backing it up. If so then link it.--Dalmatinaa (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

What! No Jesus?

Surely He should be in the photomontage? What's up with that? 76.180.168.166 (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Abraham, Moses, David, and Solomon are not there either. It appears that the montage contains historically verifiable figures who have a reasonably accurate artistic or photographic representation. There's probably discussion in the archives. Antandrus (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Brief followup: search for "montage" in the archives, for some previous discussion on this topic. Antandrus (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. It's true that Christ is not historically verifiable, but not at the same level as those you mention all of whom were a thousand years earlier or more. Solomon begins to be quasi historical, and Christ is all but. Maybe one from that set of five or at least someone before Maimonides, maybe Judas Maccabeus. Han Chinese for example has a number of personages not verified historically, though not one contemporary with the four you mention such as the Yellow Emperor. The point is though that Yeshua Bar Joseph is probably the most notable individual of all time so far, though I'll try to look at the archives later for the rationale, thx. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Jesus was not a jew but a judean. he rejected the fact that jews dont or were against proselytize and rejected old angry god of the old testament, less eye for an eye and more turn the other cheek. so no he wasnt a jew, he didnt reject jews joining but his followers rejected the old religion considering it an enemy to all humanity according to sources. They would considered people like Ovadia Yosef and Maimonides today to be extremely anti gentile but not different from the pharasee leaders. Looking at the jewish source themself describe old jewish one of the most famous rabbi who interpret the torah,the old testament.

"According to the Talmud, "Gentiles are neither to be lifted [out of a well] nor hauled down [into it]" (Tractate Avodah Zarah, 26b). Maimonides writes: "As for Gentiles with whom we are not at war…their death must not be caused, but it is forbidden to save them if they are at the point of death; if, for example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he should not be rescued, for it is written: 'neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy fellow'--but [a Gentile] is not thy fellow"

(Mishneh Torah, Laws of Murder 4:11)." -http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Jews_and_Non-Jews/Attitudes_Toward_Non-Jews/Biblical_and_Rabbinic/Anti-Gentile_Traditions.shtml

So no, the old judaism was rejected by Christ and his followers "Those Jewish persecutors killed both the Lord Jesus and the Prophets, and drove us out of their midst. They are displeasing to God, and are the enemies of all mankind" 1 Thessalonians 2:15 [2]


Obviously evident today, judaism is far less violent. that said, there are still todays Pharasee like Yosef ovadia who wasnt forced to step down from his position and is still a major respected person in the culture of israeli rabbis. Where as if any Muslim or buddhist said the things yosef ovadia would said today they would be in prison for inciting racial conflict for calling non jews slaves and compared them to donkeys. Imagine if they would say that jews should be slaves and that a jew is the equalant of a donkey. it would never be allowed in any western modern society.


In short, No. he rejected an apathy to extreme xenophobicculture that existed.even the crowd wanted him dead, not just the priests for saying he was the son of god. He probably would have accepted the jewish left[3] Renaloak (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed addition

By my last contribution I was trying to suggest the addition of content, and not just start a general discussion. I'm new to this, so please advise as to the proper steps to take to add content to an existing article. Thank youCuriousabouttheworld (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Link to previous post: [1] Singularity42 (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This article is a more of a general knowledge article. There is a dedicated article to genetic studies at Genetic studies on Jews. There has been some (somtimes heated) discussions of the recent paper at the article's talk page and the related archives. Singularity42 (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Demographics box

The demographics box seems messed up. Unless the total Jewish population is around 308,479,532, then I doubt the United States has only 1.71% of the Jewish Population. Probably that reference tag that messed it up. I don't have an account so I can't fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.127.74 (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a misreading. There's nothing to be fixed. The table indicates that the Jewish population of the U.S. is 1.71% of the total population of the U.S. (about 308 million). Likewise with the Jewish population of each other country as a percentage of that country's total population. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Judaism is a religion not an ethinic group

The main contributors to this discussion have discussed misunderstandings regarding definitions of various terms used in the article and appear to have solved those misunderstandings. The discussion ended over a month ago. I am formally marking it as closed. A reminder to new editors that this is not a page to make personal accusations against other editors, and personal attacks against another editor anywhere on Wikipedia are not tolerated. Singularity42 (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A person can convert to Judaism even if they would not be considered Jewish by race. The definition is far too ambiguous in that case Also I see no proof that Jewish is an Ethnicity anymore than saying that a person of pure Spanish decent could not be considered white. This page should treat Judaism as a religion not an ethnic group Pug6666 01:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pug6666 (talk • contribs)

Please see the "Ethnoreligious group" article. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Pug, you have just unwittingly stumbled across one of the origins of the Israeli-Palestinians conflict. There is no right answer to this question - people can believe what they like. This question was debated extensively amongst the Jewish community worldwide in the 19th and early 20th century. See for example Timeline of Anti-Zionism. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Jews are an ethnicity and a religion, to be one you don't have to be the other. That's how you get many people who say they are Jewish and Atheistic at the same time! It means they see themselves as Jews by ethnicity but as non-Jews by religion. Jews meet all the requirements to qualify as an ethnic group, which include common identity and history. Saying that Jews are "just a religion" is a common lie among modern anti-Semites! This page talks about Jews as an ethnic group, if you want the history of the religion you can go to Judaism. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
90.196.60.197—I doubt if there are many examples of people who "see themselves as…non-Jews by religion."[2] I think it would be rare for any person who is otherwise Jewish to articulate that he/she is not Jewish by religion. That is simply not language that is used. More likely the sort of person that I think you may have in mind would say that they were "nonobservant" or "secular" or "not religious". They would probably not be saying that they were "non-Jews by religion". I don't think that is language in actual use. Bus stop (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
It's a tough argument: that by adopting a particular philosophy one's DNA magically changes. I expect that in an encyclopedia an editor should go to extreme lengths to ensure such claims are very well documented, otherwise this is merely reposting of religious nonsense which has no place here or, if included, it should be very clear this is fable and not fact. Lexlex (白痴美國) (talk) 12:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Denying that Jews are an ethnicity is a common anti-Semitic tactic meant to de-legitimize Israel. I'm an atheist Jew. But if Jews cannot be an ethnicity, then what am I? A nothing? Ashkenazis are not related to Germans or Slavs. Why do you think we look different? Why do we have Semitic features? Curly hair? Big noses? Red hair? King David had red hair. Why do we get Tay–Sachs disease but Europeans don't? Why have DNA tests confirmed that we are from the Middle East? How come when I had my DNA checked, the conclusion was that my ancestors were part of the second great migration out of Africa and passed through Middle East and settled in Italy, even though I have no family history from Italy? This confirms the story that Jews were expelled from Israel by the Romans and brought to Rome as slaves. Jews are descended from the ancient Israelites who founded the Kingdom of Judah and thus we are an ethnic group. There have been only minimal conversions into Judaism. But even that should make a difference because no ethnic group is "racially pure," especially those of Europe and Asia. There are constantly outsiders marrying into different ethnicities. Even though you're Chinese, I bet you have some Mongolian, Korean, or Japanese blood in you from hundreds of years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauriacts (talk • contribs) 23:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
My great-grandparents came from Russia to the United States. But they were not Russian. They didn't even speak Russian; they spoke Yiddish. My family doesn't look Russian; they look Jewish. So if you tell me we're ethnically Russian instead of Jewish, then that's just bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauriacts (talk • contribs) 23:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Lauriacts please read WP:NPA before you post again. Please remember this is not a forum and not a place for WP:PROPAGANDA. Please re-read the previous posts and try to answer the concern of the original poster: "This page should treat Judaism as a religion not an ethnic group." And remember: It's just this page we're talking about. Lexlex (白痴美國) (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Lexlex—Lauriacts seems to be following the precedent set by you in discussing "DNA". The original poster doesn't inquire about "DNA" specifically. Bus stop (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Good point. I think I assumed "ethnic group" was being used in a strict scientific sense, but it wasn't made clear by the OP and, per Ethnoreligious group, that term can be interpreted in many different ways. Lexlex (白痴美國) (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it is fair to say that when describing Jews as both a religious and ethnical group, the latter definition is a combination of cultural and genetic heritage, rather than one or the other. See Ethnic group. Singularity42 (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Excellent point. Now can we leave it at that? This discussion has had little, if any, relation to editing the article, and has served far too long as a general forum and a magnet for sniping back and forth. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bible

Since when is Bible any trusworthy source for the Wikipedia? Please consider revising the article to quote trusted historical sources only. --Normis99 (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the fact the bible is not a trustworthy source! After all, how can you believe a source saying the world was made 5000 years ago? I do think that bible can be used, though only with a scientific source near it confirming or contrasting it. For example "bible said X, but archeological sources said Y". 90.196.60.197 (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
One of the main issues is that the Bible is not used in the article, I do not know why you did not check before making the accusation. This is an obvious red light for suspect alterior motives, again because the Bible is not used. It is therefor a suspect accusation.
The Bible in terms of Archeology goes back to the era of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo and Josephus, make mention of it, it is used as a source on Brittanica and all of the Christian era founders of Western Civilization, and in millions of contemporary scholarly books,it is not a Wikipeia editor's job to soapbox against a book so widely used. Many, many, have used the Bible as an historical reference. Quite a few people who religiously believe "in" the Bible do not believe in your soapboxing that the world is 5000 years old, you are reducing your opponent without giving them a chance, to absurdity, among the few dozen which I have seen, "The Challenge of Creation: Judaism's Encounter with Science, Cosmology, and Evolution" written from a religious Jewish perspective does not believe the world is 5000 years old, yet uses the Bible as a history, even to prove just that. Again not Wikipedia's job to judge. The religion of the Bible can not be viewed neutrally as being some how "magically" inferior to the magic spoken of by Herodotus, both are provably the same age, the Bible may even be older.Yan Eggerland (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If the Bible is to be put on trial, as many hardcore anti-Semites, and anti-the existing State of Israel have taken to doing on Wokipedia tt their hate, who be "athiest" in an conspiracy of hate against the Jews. The obvious only non-bigotted approach would be to put the Bible on trial for the big boys as well, the New and Old Testament, and even the Koran which obviously is very similar, and the Book of Mormon, why obsess on your anti-Semitic bias, please be fair. Put your anti-Jewish box on all religions or Peoples which quote the Koran, Bible, Shinto or any other religious text connected to their founding, or else you are in the wrong, hate crime level wrong, or put the whole thing on trial.Yan Eggerland (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see any bible references in the footnotes. I'll AGF for now. 128.103.7.152 (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Khazar descent

I added this to the section on genetic data, and it was deleted:

However, more recent genetic research confirms the "Khazar Hypothesis," according to which Eastern European Jews are descendants to a large degree of Khazar people of the Caucasus and the Volga valley, who had converted to Judaism and later migrated westward. Agence France-Presse, 16 Jan. 2013, "Gene study settles debate over origin of European Jews," ttp://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJN90t2gN6hxGiFQuBv-gYQE060w?docId=CNG.52483183e4e0f60d963361c17572c848.81

The objection was that: 1. The source does not support that Jews are descendants "to a large degree" from the Khazar people.

Note that the article states that "mong European Jews, Elhaik found ancestral signatures that pointed clearly to the Caucasus and also, but to a smaller degree, the Middle East." Thus the Khazar genetic contribution appears to be more significant than the "original" Middle Eastern one. That seems to support fully "to a large degree."

2. I am giving a fringe theory undue weight.

Note the editor who removed it provides NO RS for the proposition that this is fringe. The investigator is a geneticist at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Hardly fringe. In any event, one sentence in a genetic section of this size is undue weight?
I would also note that deleting a contribution, including the footnote, is heavy handed and insulting, or worse. Thank you for your consideration. --NYCJosh (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree. It is not WP:UNDUE, since the article has no other mention of this hypothesis that is not only supported by that recent study you quote, but also by others. I re-added the paragraph, with the original source. --bender235 (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Bender235. It's nice when someone restores one's contribution for one so one doesn't feel like a thief in the night. --NYCJosh (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, User:Evildoer187 reverted it again. Let's wait for his detailed explanation now. --bender235 (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Geneticists here... was asked to validate the source provided. But will let the book that follows sum up the controversy of the statement being added/removed ......this MAY be contentious to many. -- See note 63 at the page linked in the following book Eric Maroney (2010). The Other Zions: The Lost Histories of Jewish Nations. Cornell University. p. 178. ISBN 978-1-4422-0045-6. -- Thank you for your time.Moxy (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The controversy surrounding this "Khazar hypothesis" is well known. Still it is unclear to me why it is not mentioned in this article at all, not in a single word. --bender235 (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The passage in question...

"However, more recent genetic research confirms the "Khazar hypothesis," according to which Eastern European Jews are descendants of Khazar people of the Caucasus and the Volga valley, who had converted to Judaism and later migrated westward.[62][63]"

The sources provided consist of one study by Elhaik whose conclusions have been criticized by other noted geneticists and scholars, and what appears to be a French news site which discusses Elhaik's work. This is far from sufficient enough to justify these additions, hence WP:UNDUE, especially given the controversial nature of said edits.Evildoer187 (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Before I comment on the rest: please name those "other noted geneticists and scholars" that have critized this particular study. The only "critique" I could find so far was this Jerusalem Post op-ed column that has no scientific substance at all, but only critizises the fact that Elhaik, "whose previous articles have dealt with such subjects as the genome sequence of the Leafcutter ant" (read: how dare he writing on something else then?), examined a theory by "the womanizing communist" Arthur Koestler (read: how can a "womanizing communist" come up with something credible, ever?). Other than that, nothing. --bender235 (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Bender235 on all these points. AFP is a major RS. The source presents the work of a scientist at a major research university. No contradicting source has been provided. (And no, an editor's views are not notable.)
Even without this, Koestler's theory is notable and should be included in the article, as Bender 235 suggests. Anyone care to present some footnotes in support of that? There is also a recent book by University of Tel Aviv historian Shlomo Sand entitled "The Invention of the Jewish People," which also includes much fascinating evidence for the Khazar hypothesis. --NYCJosh (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

There are 23 genetic studies refuting Khazar theory and time and again this theory is tried to be POV forced into numerous articles without explaining what mainstream historians like Bernard Levis, Moshe Gil, Golden or others said about this-namely that this is rubbish. The same goes to genetics, dozens of genetic studies, academic books from population genetic and still one home made study which used samples from another study whch again btw came to opposite conclusion is taken out from all the rest of this studies due to clear POV and WP:UNDUE. Elhaik study is mentioned in Genetic studies on Jews article, no reason to be repeated here, as all the rest of studies.--Tritomex (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of Elhaik's study, how do you justify that the so-called "Khazar hypothesis" is not mentioned in a single word in this article? Regardless of what one thinks of this theory, as a matter of fact it has been very prominent for at least the past 30 years. So, if anything, not mentioning it is WP:UNDUE. Doesn't have to be with reference to Elhaik's study, but with a general note. --bender235 (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

1) This is an article about entire Jewish people, not Ashkenazi Jews 2)This is not an article about genetic studies on Jews where Khazarian hypothesis is mentioned many times 3)The Khazarian hypothesis is considered a fringe theory by most (to be precise all academic historians beyond one) and all geneticist beyond one and is being described by the biggest authority on this subject Bernard Lewis as "This theory… is supported by no evidence whatsoever. It has long since been abandoned by all serious scholars in the field, including those in Arab countries, where the Khazar theory is little used except in occasional political polemics" To mention this single genetic studies without 23 other studies teeing the opposite is giving UNDUE weight to this claim, while all genetic studies including this one can be found in related Wikipedia article. The Khazarian hypothesis is already extensively debated in Genetic studies on Jews which is linked to this article, Shlomo Sand, The Invention of Jewish people, Ashkenazi Jews etc--Tritomex (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess only in your imagination is a historian the "biggest authority" on genetics (by the way, Lewis' book you quoted is out-dated, genetics moved on). Also, your claim that "no geneticist but one" considers this theory is pretty laughable since Ashkenazi Jews alone cites three studies in support of this theory. I suppose this topic is too delicate for serious discussion. Too many ideologists involved, and too many people like you for whom something "just can't be". I'll let go, I won't put my foot in my mouth in this issue. --bender235 (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The "3 studies cited by Elhaik" are an amateur genetic article made by a lawyer Levy Coffman, a 2009 study by Kopelman et al wich concluded "Concerning the theory of Khazar ancestry in Ashkenazi Jews we found no evidence at all" and probably a study made by Zoosman Disskin which concluded that the origin of Ashkenazi Jews is South European, namely Italian without supporting Khazar theory.

Please familiarize yourself with genetic studies of Hammer, Koopelman, Nebla, Behar, Shen, Molutsky, Thomas, Atzmon, Semino, Moorijani, Bray, Need, Haber, Feder etc and with academic historians from population genetics like those of T. Frudakis, H. Ostrrer, historians like Dunlop, Lewis, Moshe Gil, Golden etc. You have extensive debate on this question in all articles I have stated above. Concerning Lewis he is widely considered the most cited and most objective historian of 20th century in questions related to Middle East. --Tritomex (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The study in question is a marginal attempt to twist academic study results to fit a fringe theory in order to publish a "sensational publication"; it is not different in academic response from the famously discredited study by Arnaiz Villena claiming Greeks come from sub-Saharan Africa. Jews in general also showed high affinity with non-Arab or indigenous Arabized populations of Fertile Crescent like Kurds and Druze and to a lesser degree genetic affinity with Arabs proper (still Jews were shown to be more related to Arabs than to north Europeans or Asians of course). Elhaik compared Ashkenazi Jews to Palestinians, Cypriots, Turks, Druze and Armenians and resulted (similar to previous studies) that Ashkenazi Jews relate closer to Cypriots, Turks, Druze and Armenians than to Palestinian Arabs; Finally Elhaik theorized that Armenians represent "Khazar descendants" and Cypriots and Druze are migrant populations into Eastern Mediterranean (which is quiet ridiculous), while Palestinians are pure descendants of ancient Israelites; then he summarized that if Armenians descent from Khazars then Ashkenazi Jews also descent from Khazars (???). Of course Elhaik also disregarded the previous studies that Ashkenazi Jews perfectly match with Sephardic Jews, Syrian Jews and Samaritans - which completely undermines his conclusion. As tritimex said - Elhaik is quiet a joke today in the academic society for his amateur conclusion.Greyshark09 (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't run out of arguments, Bender. I don't live on Wikipedia, and I do have other priorities in life that don't entail arguing with Wikipedia editors who, in all likelihood, won't even listen to me anyway.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Evildoer187, you were editing all over Wikipedia while ignoring this talk page. I assumed you hadn't anything left to say. Have you not?
To everyone else: I guess the basic misunderstanding in this case was how we document this theory within this article. I never meant to document it as if it was true, but only the fact that it existed. For some reason you guys fail to recognize that encyclopedias (which includes Wikipedia) also include unproven or even definitively wrong theories, like Le Sage's theory of gravitation or the element Aether. Even though they are wrong, they need to be documented. The citation of Koestler, Elhaik, etc. was not meant to prove that the theory was correct, but only that it existed. I hope at least some of you know the difference and will include the Khazar hypothesis accordingly.
I myself won't touch this article anymore. It's a fucking mine field. Some knucklehead already called me "Nazi" for wanting to mention Louis Brandeis and Mayer Amschel Rothschild on Ashkenazi Jews. This is friggin ridiculous. I'm out of here. --bender235 (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you that the Khazar theory should be mentioned in line with Rhineland theory and Slavic conversion theory (emphasizing Rhineland theory is the mainstream), but perhaps not in the genetic section. Moreover, it might be most relevant to Ashkenazi Jews, rather than Jews in general. I will put it there.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Section on Israel

Mentioning the number of Israel's Knesset members or Supreme Court judges who are Arab is highly relevant to an article on Israel, but fairly irrelevant in an article on the Jewish people. I'd edit that right out but would probably get auto-reverted as vandalism. Would anyone else like to weigh in on that? IN the meantime, the usage of "Arab citizens of Israel" describing the Knesset members and "Palestinian Arab" for the Supreme Court justice is inconsistent and can be confusing (is he from the West Bank? no) so I will make that edit for consistency now. Drmikeh49 (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

What it amounts to is that currently 12 members or 10 % of the Knesseth are not Jews as well as one out of 15 juges of the Supreme Court, while the Jewish population of Israel is only 75.4 %, according to the article. I suggest to mention it in this way, if at all. "Arab citizens of Israel" is IMO not acceptable, unless we start calling the Jewish Israelis "Jewish citizens of Israel". And by the way, why did you not choose "Palestinian Arab" "for consistency" Drmikeh49? Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 09:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the entire section is irrelevant to this article. It properly belongs in the article about Israel (and one about the Knesset, etc). By the logic of including this, the entire article on Israel could be subsumed into this article. Also, Palestinian Arabs are not all citizens of Israel--many live elsewhere. You could just leave it as simply "Jews" and "Arabs" which would also be fine. But better to strike the entire paragraph, or include far more about Israel. The latter would be quite unwieldy. Do others have opinions? Drmikeh49 (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Delete

I tried to remove the speedy delete tag, but could not find it in the text on the edit page. Could someone help? Rosencomet (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Impossible to edit or find something

Hi, I need help: I'm trying to change a population figure in the "Jews" side-bar/template/infobox (on the upper right side). I obviously wasn't able do it directly from the article so I started searching for its original page on Wikipedia but couldn't find it. I'd appreciate it if someone will let me know how find it. Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

propose your change at template talk:Infobox Jews. Frietjes (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Wait, is it required that I propose it or can I simply make that minor change? Shalom11111 (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
sourced corrections should not require proposal, but you never know, you may be reverted. Frietjes (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox image

Okay. I'm getting sick and tired of these stupid pictures of Jews. What the hell are these sad , dull pictures? LOL Is this it!? Is this how we Jews are gonna honor our achievements? I'm a Jew from an Ashkenazi mother and Scots-Irish backround from my father. And I gotta say that I'm not proud of the current Wikipedia pictures. So I've already layed down the foundation from some acceptable Jewish figures. I want the Jewish ethnicity to AMAZE. When I'm gonna go on Wikipedia and see the people we represent -- everybody should be like WOWWW. How can such a small nation REPRESENT SO MUCH GOOD, COLOR, SO MUCH LIGHT, SO MUCH BLESSINGS . I want our achievements to be A SLAP IN THE FACE to all the ignorant people out there. You know what the Talmud says my dear Jews Success is the greatest revenge but I can't do this by myself. Because I don't know how to get the damn authorization for the pictures . I'M PRETTY SURE THAT AT LEAST ONE OF YOU IN HERE HAS THE ABILITY TO DO IT. TAKE YOUR TIME MY FELLOWS. BUT ONE THING FOR SURE , TWO THINGS FOR CERTAIN -- THE CURRENT JEW PICTURES ARE UNACCEPTABLE IN RELEVANCE TO THE AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTIONS WE REPRESENT TO THE WORLD


SO HERE IS MY LIST. = )

| image

File:Jewish Pictures Of Ethnicity.jpg
Jewish Pictures Of Ethnicity

1st row: King David • King Solomon• Daniel• Moses• Abraham
2nd row: Jacob • Samson • Jesus • Isaiah • Isaac
3rd row: Sigmund Freud • Yitzhak Rabin • Richard Feynman • J. Robert Oppenheimer• Rita Levi-Montalcini
4th row:Baruch Spinoza • Maimonides • Bob Kahn • Albert Einstein• Ralph Lauren
5th row:Rachel Weisz • Bar Rafaeli • Steven Spielberg • Sandy Koufax• Lee Strasberg
6th row:Gustav Mahler • Larry Page • Joel S. Engel • Ralph Baer• Gertrude Elion


I'm not coming back here. So do what you want. If you don't wanna help me-- to hell with you people . But live knowing you haven't given 100 percent and you haven't open up your minds to how awesome JEWS truly are.

Goodbye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.169.110.202 (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice attempt, but to be honest, it has many problems. The first two lines are biblical figures who either didn't exist in real life, or existed but their life had nothing to do with the mythology around them. It's like the Greeks putting Hercules in.
The rest of the selection is nice, but you forgot Sholem Aleichem and Marc Chagall. Also, Nathalie Portman is a better idea then Bar Rafaeli. 90.215.73.222 (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Number of Jews in Ukraine

The article noted that in Ukraine for only 67,000 Jews. But according to the Census of 2001 there 103,600 (I do not know how they counted their number in 2012 because I did not find such information in Ukrainian, even on the State Statistics Committee site). I already wrote about it once, but someone told me that it is necessary to have a uniform data from one source. But I believe that the official census data more reliable. Please correct the data.Шиманський Василь (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

There may be much less now than in 2001. After all, there is emigration to Israel (Aliyah). Debresser (talk) 10:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
The reason for this large difference in number may have been resulted from the methods the surveys used to consider who is a Jew and who isn't. One census may have included those who were half Jewish, while the other may have used only those who, for example, said they're religiously and ethnically Jewish. What Debresser said is also a possibility, and I add that there's also emigration to the U.S. Shalom11111 (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
As Shalom11111 wrote, the methodology of counting who is Jewish may vary considerably, which is why it is best to use a single source for all the population numbers. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Having said that, I actually think exactly the opposite. Because of the fact that the definition of a Jew depends on so many factors and and varies between different forms in Judaism (see Who is a Jew), Jews have no absolute number or definition. And I believe it applies to other groups of people by the way. Therefore, we should always give a low (core) and high (enlarged) estimate. Shalom11111 (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Pictures of notable Jews on the top of the menu

Nothing against Natalie Portman, but I really do not think her picture should be on the pictures of notable Jews area. She's right under Ben-Gurion... I'm a secular Jew, but I have to imagine there are some better modern representatives out there, Daniel Ellsberg? Noam Chomsky (yes I know he was atheist, so was Ben-Gurion), Howard Zinn? 129.2.232.235 (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

First establish consensus, then add the editprotected template. Debresser (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
This article is about Jews as an ethnic group, so there is no problem for an atheist to be in the selection. The reasons Porman is in are that she is an Oscar winning actress which is obviously a good representative of Jews in cinema, and she is also a woman which is a category under-represented in the collage. I think she is a great idea for the collage.2.222.87.118 (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Portman is the most successful female Jewish actress of her generation. As Debresser pointed, including Portman in the collage also makes it less of a kosher sausage fest. Gilad55 (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

Introduction

"According to Jewish tradition, Jewish ancestry is traced back to the Biblical patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who lived in Canaan around the 18th century BCE. Historically, Jews had evolved mostly from the Tribe of Judah and Simeon, and partially from the Israelite tribes of Binyamin and Levi, who had all together formed the ancient Kingdom of Judah. A closely related group is the Samaritans, who claim descent from the Israelite tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, while according to the Bible their origin is in the people brought to Israel by the Neo-Assyrian Empire and some Cohanim (Jewish priests) who taught them how to worship the "native God".[13] The Jewish ethnicity, nationality and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.[14][15][16] Converts to Judaism have a status within the Jewish ethnos equal to those born into it.[17] Conversion is not encouraged by mainstream Judaism, and is considered a tough task, mainly applicable for cases of mixed marriages.[18]"

This is very concise, as well as somewhat dubious: the kingdom of Judah is mentioned, but the kingdom of Israel (under kings Solomon, David and Saul) is entirely omitted. This suggest that the author is not so much concerned with Judaism, as with the name Jew (which indeed derived from Judah). But the author, by omitting Israel altogether, suggests that the inhabitants of Israel were not Jews. Clearly there is a confusion here between the two terms.

Dubiousness already starts with the first line, where Judaism is implicitly defined ethnically only. What is clear is that early Jews consisted of various tribes without cities (Jerusalem, now the mainstay of Judaism, was captured by king David); Egyptian sources first mention such tribes in a victory stele, but this postdates the 18 century BCE significantly.

"Conversion is not encouraged by mainstream Judaism": that may be the current communis opinio, but historically conversion explains a great deal of the expansion of Judaism. One need only to think of the Khazar Jews, the Jews of Uganda, Ethiopia, and the whole expanse of Judaism throughout the Roman empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.58.37 (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The Khazar myth has been busted. Science confirms the common Levantine ancestry of Mizrahim, Sephardim and Ashkenazim. 67.182.154.25 (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Gilad55 (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

I would suggest a rewrite of the entire first paragraph to clarify various things such as mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.58.37 (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The kingdom of Israel under Saul, David and Solomon later split into the northern Kingdom of Israel and the southern Kingdom of Judah. Modern Jews are descendants of the latter. That is what the article means to say.
The first line mentions patriarchs, and this indeed implies ethnicity. But even in those days, Judaism was already a religion, and the Patriarchs already made proselytes.
Conversion was not encouraged ever. It may have been widespread over the centuries, but it was not encouraged. The expanse of Jews over the Roman empire, may be due in part by the expulsion of Jews from Iudaea after the Bar Kokhba revolt. Debresser (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The name Jews comes from the word Judea, which means, from the Kingdom of Judea. The tribes which remained in the Kingdom of Israel got lost (the lost tribes), and the Jews are not descendent from them. According to studies, 40%-60% of the Ashkenazi genes are from Israel/Judea, while the rest are European genes. Even though some of the European genes are from conversion, we don't know how much of them were, and it's more likely that more of them came from rapes as a result of crusades and pogroms. Don't forget, Jews never tried to convert people into their religion, and in a reality where Jews were living in ghettos and were seen as non-Christian heretics, not many would convert. I do agree the paragraph should be re-written because the Bible is not a reliable source, just like the Roman Mythology is not a reliable source to the history of Romans.2.222.87.118 (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to clarify a little of what was written above: First, the European DNA carried by Ashkenazim is mitochondrial and can be traced to four female contributors of Southern European origin. This fits with the theory that the forefathers of Ashkenazi Jews first migrated to the Mediterranean from the Levant. Those who left the Holy Lands without wives would have met eligible women after emigrating and converted them according to Jewish custom. Second, there is no evidence that rape made a significant impact upon the genome of the Jewish people. I'm unsure why the commenter believes pogroms would have contributed to rapes and thus births as the the purpose of the pogroms was the extermination of Jewish communities, not a terrorizing of them. Gilad55 (talk) 07:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

Benedictus de Spinoza

Benedictus de Spinoza converted to christianity. He is not a jew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.229.115.164 (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Jews as an ethnic group. Him being Christian doesn't stop him from being a Jew. Best, --Spivorg (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
That statement is controversial. Nevertheless, he is know as a Jew who converted, so could technically be in this template regardless of that issue. Debresser (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Spivorg. Being Jewish is a tribal identity, not a statement of beliefs like, say, being a Christian. If one is born, or accepted, into the tribe(s), one is a Jew, even if you subsequently adopt another religion's belief system, or become an atheist for that matter. Also, there is no evidence that Spinoza ever converted to Christianity, was baptized, or participated in a Christian mass. He is regarded as a heretic, but a Jewish one. Today he would probably be regarded as a reformed Jew.Rosencomet (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Arabic in lead

The Arabic name for Jews is already in the "Name and etymology" section. There's no reason for it to be in the lead. Also, why Arabic and not, say, Greek? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

  • User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz since you reverted my edit, why don't you discuss the issue. About Arabic in lead. I shall undo your version and reinstate my version again: this is because Arabic and Hebrew are related cultures and languages. Both languages can be displayed in the lead. The question is why not? Greek is not related to Jews, but Arabic has always been. This is a positive constructive edit that shouldn't be removed. Please refrain from Edit warring.
  • Also since User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz seems prejudiced against the Arabic language. Please remember Wikipedia is equal for everyone.

Rahibsaleem (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

If you read the "Name and etymology" section, you would see that the word "Jew" derives from the Greek. Arabic has nothing to do with anything and doesn't belong in the lead. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Wrong: "The Greek term was originally a loan from Aramaic Y'hūdāi, corresponding to Hebrew: יְהוּדִי, Yehudi (sg.); יְהוּדִים, Yehudim (pl.), in origin the term for a member of the tribe of Judah or the people of the kingdom of Judah. The name of both the tribe and kingdom derive from Judah, the fourth son of Jacob.[28]": 'Jews' from Hebrew. And Arabic is a sister language of Hebrew. Rahibsaleem (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
See Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries.
Not so long ago, Arabic was the mother tongue of a large portion of Jews. Their descendants make up about half of Israel's population today.
Oncenawhile (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Please share your opinion

Hi, on Category talk:People of Jewish descent there is an ongoing discussion about whether or not sub-categories of people of Middle Eastern (and Southwest Asian) decent should be included in categories of people who reliable sources say are of Jewish descent. It has been discussed before here and on various other occasions, but apparently this debate never reached an official consensus. Since this topic is directly relevant to this article, you're welcome to participate in it. Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Not all Jews are Semites, some are converts, and Askenazi Jews for example aren't only of Semitic descent, they're also of various European descent, and there seems to be some Caucasian ancestry in there as well. 84.111.196.56 (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Not a good idea. There is a dispute resolution post in the make, so let's keep our powder dry for that one. Debresser (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Jesus

The consensus of historians is that Jesus was a real person and that he was a Jew. The only thing of any real debate is of a purely religious nature, that is was he divine or not? Nevertheless, he is worshiped by over two billion people as the "son of God," making him one of the most important people in history. So I believe it would be appropriate to have him included in the infobox, since other articles about people groups include important ancient people as well. He certainly is more worthy of being included than an actress who will be all but forgotten in two hundred years, let alone two thousand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.240.43.113 (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

We discussed this before, and the conclusion was that there are reasons not to have him in the infobox also. Debresser (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
These are the past discussions about it:
[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]
The current catalog is problematic - it must be bigger and it shouldn't include only 9 people, and the same ones for such a long time. I am personally in favor of making it a catalog of 16 people, including Jesus, who was of course Jew and undoubtedly the most influential one of all, with 2 billion adherents worldwide. Opinions, please? Shalom11111 (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Change the montage on account of its figures being long-standing? That's ironic. Jews are an ancient people. The catalog must be bigger? Definitely a pov assertion. Pardon me, but I don't hear a chorus of complaints about the present number.
If there's one thing the previous discussions have shown clearly, it's the highly controversial nature of including Jesus in the infobox. That alone should be sufficient grounds not to get into yet another long discussion of whether or not to do so. Add to that the balance in the existing content established through prolonged and repeated past discussions. "If it ain't broken let's not fix it." Hertz1888 (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't saying the collage should be changed only because it has 9 figures and long-standing ones. I just think it should include more notable Jews, and be updated sometimes. There doesn't necessarily have to be a "chorus of complaints" about anything on Wikipedia in order for it to be improved/changed. Every opinion is valued, and saying otherwise is ironic.
You also said "If there's one thing the previous discussions have shown clearly, it's the highly controversial nature of including Jesus in the infobox. That alone should be sufficient grounds not to get into yet another long discussion of whether or not to do so". I was a little surprised to read such a statement from an experienced editor like you. We should have an organized discussion/vote here and once and for all decide whether or not to include Jesus in the collage solely because there have been so many talks about it and they didn't reach any official consensus. This stuff is relevant. We should be aiming at solving issues, not pushing them to the side and ignoring them. That argument you provided is obviously not policy based, needless to say. Shalom11111 (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
We have had that discussion before, and no, we do not want to go there again. What do you think, that every time some editor thinks we should include Jesus we need to establish consensus anew? For the record, I completely agree with Hertz1888: "That alone should be sufficient grounds not to get into yet another long discussion of whether or not to do so". Debresser (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

What historian consensus said he existed? Most serious historians dispute Jesus ever existed, and we don't put fairytale characters in here, that's why Moses and whatever are not in here as well. It had been debated many times either directly about Jesus or about different characters with similar circumstances (spells almost like circumcision). When someone tells a story (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I respect both your opinions, but I dispute them. No official consensus was ever reached about this important matter, and since it constantly comes up, I'll make this

Proposal

Closed as oppose per longstanding consensus. My advise to Shalom11111 is to study WP:SNOW and to start accepting the fact that not all editors agree with him in everything. If you see two experienced editors disagreeing with you, quoting previous lack of discussion, do not open a discussion. Debresser (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I propose including Jesus in the current collage. He was of course Jew and undoubtedly the most influential one of all, with 2 billion adherents worldwide.Shalom11111 (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we could use the same photo used in 'his' article - this one? Or maybe we should just drop this case.. Shalom11111 (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Big oppose. First of all, there is no historian consensus that Jesus was a real person, in fact, it's more likely that he's a myth from what I read. Second, we need to avoid using people who don't have a contemporary photo or who don't have a portrait painted of them. When someone tells a story (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The selection of distinguished Jews should not be arbitrary

While I agree with including famous Jews like Einstein and Ben Gurion in the listing, I think it is a big mistake to include a young actress like Natalie Portman. Not to disparage her acting skills, but she has been around as an actress only a short time (and has only won one major award - a Golden Globe). There are so many other famous Jewish actors and actresses who have actually been acknowledged for their life time of accomplishments. What about Sarah Bernhardt, Sophie Tucker, Groucho Marx, Edward G. Robinson, George Burns, Eddie Cantor, Fanny Brice, Jack Benny, Peter Lorre, Milton Berle, Dinah Shore, Danny Kaye, Paulette Goddard, Shelley Winters, Peter Sellers, Carl Reiner, Paul Newman, Walter Matthau, Jerry Lewis, Judy Holiday, Lawrence Harvey, Peter Falk, Tony Curtis, Sid Caesar, Mel Brooks, Lauren Bacall, Elizabeth Taylor, Martin Landau, Dustin Hoffman, Alan Arkin, Woody Allen, Barbara Streisand and many others who have a lifetime of achievement in acting and the stage and have been acknowledged as such? The inclusion of a photo for a 'representative' important Jewish person needs to be based on consensus and a lifetime of accomplishment, not an actor or actress 'de jour'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.2.72.136 (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Point very well made. I agree. Of the 9 slots, we should try to use "the" leading example in each sphere of achievement. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with what you said about people being qualified by lifetime achievements, I always said when making a collage make sure each person could still qualify for the collage in 100 years. However, I think Portman qualifies and should stay:

  • I think she's not just a young celebrity. Despite her short acting career, she won an Academy Award, and tool park in many notable films. Even though she's young, an Academy Award already qualifies her by the life achievements.
  • Even though the actors you mentioned are notable, the fact that she is a woman and young are exactly the right reasons why she should be in the collage to represent Jews in entertainment and contemporary Jews over those you mentioned. In most collages they try to balance the number of men and women as much as possible.
  • All the people you mentioned are American, and we don't want to do it to American-centric. Portman American, but she's also Israeli, and that gives Israelis a fair representation in the collage. When someone tells a story (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the points made by When someone tells a story in favor of keeping Portman. Debresser (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Nazi guide to the Nuremberg laws
  2. ^ http://bible.cc/1_thessalonians/2-15.htm
  3. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_left
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jews/Archive_24&oldid=1136843522"